Plugging into the Right (to Repair) Conversation
by Alana Quartuccio
Running an automotive service or collision repair shop means juggling a constant stream of priorities – providing good service to customers, keeping up with training, researching OEM repair procedures and maintaining the day-to-day business operations.
With so much demanding their attention, it can’t always be easy for shop owners to keep up with all the conversations taking place in the industry; however, it’s highly important that they stay informed on matters that can impact how they do business.
Possibly one of the most debated – and perhaps equally misunderstood – topics of conversation in the industry lies in initiatives that claim to protect the “Right to Repair.”
AASPMN works hard to make sure its members are in the know by providing channels in which they can come to the table with questions. Communicating with members helps the association identify their needs and that goes a long way in making sure the right conversations are taking place.
AASPMN Executive Director Linden Wicklund believes there’s a lot of confusion surrounding the Right to Repair debate, especially with the telematics implications involved. In her opinion, there just isn’t enough discussion about the changing complexity of this topic. Is it because the concerns just aren’t there, or are these conversations not reaching the average auto service and body shop owners?
Right to Repair started over a decade ago in Massachusetts with legislation that came about in 2012. In 2014, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was established nationwide to apply the principles of the landmark Massachusetts legislation to the rest of the country. In more recent years, talks have been surrounding the federal REPAIR Act initiative which has brought up a lot of debate as representatives on the collision repair side of the equation have questioned if it’s really about “right to repair” or about access to vehicle data for non-repair purposes, such as marketing or insurance interests.
“I think the biggest issue with Right to Repair is the original versus the 2.0 version,” observes Wicklund. “I believe everyone is aligned on the original idea of Right to Repair, which made sure repair shops had access to diagnostic and repair data information. Where alignment falls apart is with the telematics element.”
As Wicklund indicated, things got tricky when Massachusetts set out to update the Right to Repair law in 2020 to expand language concerning the wireless delivery of vehicle diagnostic and repair data. The original language excluded telematics data; while the updated language opened the door to allowing diagnostic and repair vehicle data shared via telematics to dealers to also be shared with independent repairers and consumers. Via a public ballot vote, Massachusetts voters approved the updated language indicating that all vehicles model year 2022 and on that utilize telematics systems would be required to allow “open access platform across all of the manufacturer’s makes and models. Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platforms.”
The movement began to stir up concerns around the industry – especially on the collision repair side – as groups began to question how more readily available data may be used. For example, it inspired the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) to send a letter to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, stating: “The ballot initiative has been disingenuously presented to voters as a solution for fixing cars. However, this initiative is really about third parties seeking bi-directional remote access to a consumer’s driving habits, patterns and locations in real time.”
Wicklund acknowledges the influence outside parties could have on consumers by pointing to Massachusetts (and later Maine) having brought the Right to Repair issue to voters via a direct-to-ballot initiative.
“The legislative bill process is fundamentally well-vetted,” she notes. “The problem with direct-to-ballot is that consumers can fall prey to marketing. I don’t think people understand that when something goes direct-to-ballot, it basically bypasses the political process. Voters should be suspicious of anything that is direct-to-ballot because they are either trying to prove a point or make a statement on something they don’t believe will get passed, or there is some type of mess going on behind the scenes.”
In regard to the federal REPAIR Act initiative, the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), Automotive Service Association (ASA) and Auto Innovators have spoken out in unison about the concerns associated, which they believed was not truly focused on consumer safety and did not represent an understanding of the challenges independent repair businesses actually face. All three organizations also support the construct that independent repair facilities shall have access to the same diagnostic and repair information that auto manufacturers make available to authorized dealer networks.
Donny Seyfer (National Automotive Service Task Force) lends some food for thought on how the technology portion came to light at this level. Components of the REPAIR Act and the first five articles of the Right to Repair MOU were put into the surface of the transportation bill.
Early in the discussion, key points involved the J2534 vehicle communication interface, compatible with OE software. “J2534 is a communications protocol that essentially allows the vehicle and a computer to interface with one another over a compliant Vehicle Communication Interface (VCI),” explains Seyfer. “The intent is to reduce the cost of hardware by having a fairly universal interface. Prior to the MOU there was some adoption of J2534 by manufacturers who made their diagnostic software available to work with either a J2534 interface or the OEMs own interface or both. The MOU agreed that all auto makers would offer such a version of their diagnostic software through their websites as a subscription service. For mechanical repairers and collision repairers having that OE software is very valuable, particularly in light of more ADAS and module programming and configuration needs as vehicles evolve.
“In my opinion, that’s the number one premise of the MOU; it made it affordable to use OE tools, as there was a subscription to use those tools,” he adds. “That agreement didn’t make a short- or long- term diagnostic software subscription. Many auto makers did that of their own volition.”
Seyfer points out that the security piece doesn’t exist inside of this current Right to Repair legislation. Anti-theft system initialization lives in the EPA clean air act. Access to key codes is part of a California law that is not enforced and Massachusetts’ original Right to Repair law pointed to the NASTF SDRM. Automakers participate and support SDRM voluntarily and many exceed the requirements in the laws with access and features that the brand and NASTF have developed over the years. The challenge to offering this type of information without accountability, as some would suggest, is that it creates a risk to all vehicle owners if someone is not watching and validating.
Now, for the million dollar question: Is repair information actually available? Seyfer says yes. “NASTF is the biggest automotive association with over 57,000 members. We have what’s called a service information request. If a technician has made every cursory effort to find something, they can come to us and we’ll get it. That only happens a couple hundred times per year from all of those members. We have everything for the entire industry. There may be a few outliers out there, but the information is readily available.”
Seyfer says the issue lies in the fact that shops have been told that legislation is the only way to make information available. “That may be true, but it’s not true for the reasons they say. Cars don’t break very often. Most cars are well made. So, if you say all the service information that was ever written for my car and all the programming and all that should be available as part of the car and on the scan tool, why would auto makers embed that stuff if it’s only going to use it a handful of times in the car’s entire life?”
As Seyfer explains, auto makers also have significant costs to develop the information. “Yes, they develop it for the dealer, and yes, they develop it so they can keep their cars on the road and ultimately get people to buy the brand again, but do you want that added to the price of the car? The responsibility has fallen to the repairer to own the proper tooling to repair the vehicle. I agree that one should be able to buy something and have access to how to repair it, but you also need to have the skills. It’s not magic. You don’t plug in a tool and have it fix the car – that’s never been the case. The fact that they’re hearing repeatedly that the information is not available and the auto makers are locking you out. That couldn’t be more false. And that’s provable.”
On the collision side, the issue isn’t with the term “right to repair.” On the contrary, Schulenburg clarifies the issue has never been with the basic idea of Right to Repair, but rather with the goals and objectives of the proponents of the proposed REPAIR Act.
Schulenburg indicated the real debate may lie in whether the REPAIR Act is really about “right to repair” or is it actually about vehicle data, which are not necessarily the same thing. He pointed to examples like the Auto Care Association and CAR Coalition, which represent aftermarket parts suppliers, distributors, manufacturers and insurance companies pushing their corporate interests pushing for critical repair access yet tout aftermarket part interests. Insurance companies have been involved with roundtable discussions at the White House on behalf of the legislation discussing how independent repairers need access to the same tools as dealers yet they settle claims to the contrary. These have all raised a red flag for collision industry representatives.
“These companies were advocating as if they are representatives of the small businesses who perform these repairs,” Schulenburg states. “Members we represent were actually coming to us to say they have the information they need. They have the capability, but what they don’t have is an easy way for customers to choose to get their car fixed as per OEM procedures or with the parts they actually want used. There is a difference between saying the customer has the ability to choose and pay above and beyond and putting economic restrictions on them. A lot of commercial influence goes into that and consumers would wind up settling rather than actually getting the repair they wanted. It wasn’t necessarily about support of consumer choice but creating a structure to influence consumers to choose alternative products and pathways and there is a vested interest in that. When talking about Right to Repair, we should be talking about the right to repair vehicles properly, the way the consumer chooses.”
“Automakers support right to repair,” Auto Innovators declared via a statement. “Always have, always will. Ask any independent auto repairer or collision expert across the country, and they’ll tell you they have no problem getting exactly what they need to properly repair a vehicle. That’s because automakers make repair instructions, tools and diagnostic codes easily available to dealers and independent repairers. That’s one of the reasons why more than 75 percent of post-warranty vehicle work today happens at independent repair shops.”
To drive home that safe and proper repairs should be at the forefront of the conversation, repairers and automakers proposed consumer-driven landmark Safety as First Emphasis (SAFE) Repair Act framework in 2025. This language has been referenced in committee hearings, but has not yet been introduced as a bill.
Recently, the REPAIR Act has moved through committee with significant changes that appear to have removed newer language, instead codifying the pre-existing MOU.
SCRS issued a statement following the recent developments: “The revised language appears to remove several concerning provisions that would have extended far beyond repair access and created pathways for unnecessary and invasive access to vehicle and consumer data by a broad range of corporate interests. We are encouraged that these changes may create more of an opportunity for House and Senate leaders to further explore the real challenges facing the repair industry that stem from commercial influence over consumer choice, and barriers to proper repair, while also building upon this foundation through consideration of collaborative solutions reflected in the SAFE Repair framework developed between the repair industry and OEM stakeholders.”
“The primary obstacles to safe and proper repairs are not access-related, but rather economic and systemic pressures that incentivize cost-cutting at the expense of OEM-required repair procedures,” SCRS’ statement continued. “The prior versions of the REPAIR Act increased accessibility to vehicle data, not to repair information, and provided no added accountability that the already-available repair information will be utilized to effectuate a proper repair for the consumer.”
So, what does it all come down to? How is this affecting shops here in Minnesota? AASPMN wants to know.
Wicklund notes that there isn’t much talk about Right to Repair in the state. “Right to Repair is currently not among our major activities, not even with our government relations and lobbying programs,” she says. “We want to raise awareness and get shops’ feedback to see if this is something we should pay more attention to.”
Want more? Check out the August 2026 issue of AASP-MN News!